The renewed debate over gun rights that has followed the massacre of elementary schoolchildren in Newtown, Conn., has included scrutiny over why gun advocates believe they need a right to bear arms. Among the reasons: Many advocates believe that individual gun ownership helps preserve American liberty, making government fearful of trampling on rights of its citizens. If government goes too far, the argument goes, Americans have the right to revolt by force.

Is that argument correct? Or does it belong to fringe gun enthusiasts?

Some are revolting by nature. Some are only revolting after hard work, others can not be revolting despite their best efforts.

Parallel and opposed to the right to revolt is the right to put down the insurrection. Not all revolts are won. Shays Rebellion, Whiskey Rebellion, Nat Turner’s rebellion, and the Great Rebellion show that it is easier to revolt than it is to win.

Isn’t that revolting?

5
posted on 01/14/2013 4:16:34 PM PST
by donmeaker
(Blunderbuss: A short weapon, ... now superceded in civilized countries by more advanced weaponry.)

There is no “right” to armed revolt. But, in some cases, it is the only solution. Always remember that rebellion begins as treason. You only become a patriot or freedom fighter if you win and get to write the history books.

"It" (the right to armed revolt) belonged first to Thomas Jefferson, who observed advisedly that "...the Tree of Liberty requires regular watering with the blood of tyrants."

Armed revolt is codified into our Founding Documents and principles, and is not just a legitimate birthright of every American citizen. It is also our deepest obligation, without which we dishonor and cast away as garbage the millions of human sacrifices made by the bravest patriots who came before us and gave up everything so that we may enjoy this right.

Bring it, all you "Gun Control" weenies. Go ahead and light this fuse, and we'll be soon enough rid of all of you.

The U.S. Declaration of Independence states that “when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government”

“The prospect of tyranny may not grab the headlines the way vivid stories of gun crime routinely do. But few saw the Third Reich coming until it was too late. The Second Amendment is a doomsday provision, one designed for those exceptionally rare circumstances where all other rights have failed - where the government refuses to stand for reelection and silences those who protest; where courts have lost the courage to oppose, or can find no one to enforce their decrees. However improbable these contingencies may seem today, facing them unprepared is a mistake a free people get to make only once.”

Judge Alex Kozinski

14
posted on 01/14/2013 4:22:13 PM PST
by SWAMPSNIPER
(The Second Amendment, a Matter of Fact, Not a Matter of Opinion)

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security

It's becoming more and more clear what (sadly) may lie ahead this nation, once United.

17
posted on 01/14/2013 4:24:36 PM PST
by llevrok
(ObamaLand - Where young people go to retire)

No the second A does not give the right. That right is clearly stated in our Declaration of Independence. It is a foundational moral principle of our republic. The second A just keeps us armed so we can apply our foundational moral principle if necessary.

The second amendment doesn’t give any rights. It forbids the federal government from infringing on the natural right to keep and bear arms. This is supposed to keep the power to revolt against tyranny in the hands of the people should they decide to exercise it. Thus it is supposed to keep potential tyrants in check and why potential tyrants don’t like it very much.

The Declaration of Independence provides that citizens have a DUTY to stand up to a tyrannical government that fails to comport itself FOR the people.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

The 2nd Amendment is the vehicle in which the Fathers of this Nation intended to protect the Citizen's right and ability to combat a tyrannical government.

24
posted on 01/14/2013 4:30:22 PM PST
by SoldierDad
(Proud dad of an Army Soldier who has survived 24 months of Combat deployment.)

Armed revolt, when necessary, isnt a right  its a solemn responsibility. What the second amendment does is to afford those who must reluctantly take on that sacred responsibility the possibility of succeeding at it.

Perfectly stated.

25
posted on 01/14/2013 4:30:28 PM PST
by SampleMan
(Feral Humans are the refuse of socialism.)

No, of course not. The right to armed revolt is older than the Bill of Rights, and it is granted by our Creator in Jefferson’s famous formulation. The Second Amendment prohibits the federal government from infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. The only connection the Second Amendment has with armed revolt is that if it is being dismissed or circumvented by an oppressive and dictatorial government, the right to bear arms confers the ability to use them.

Our Founders stated in the Preamble to the United States Declaration that

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

It would be wise for those so inclined at the moment to use methods other than gunfire to send the appropriate message.

Most definitely. The evil left would like nothing more than to have some "right wing crazies" unleash violence against the government. I pray that those who cherish Liberty stand strong and resist the temptation to take up arms.

We must hold out until the evil left truly shows it's evil face and strike out with government force against their enemies. Let all see the left for the evil in their souls.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

39
posted on 01/14/2013 4:42:00 PM PST
by NonValueAdded
(If you can keep your head when all about you are losing theirs, you've likely misread the situation.)

We could try petitions ... there are any number of petitions that have been and are being filed with the White House, but they just laugh them off.

“In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

(I think I remember that tune) Exactamundo my friend. But my problem is this: Pubbies have no ballz.

Boner, the NO NUTZ PUTZ, would cry a river if some young blood suggested impeaching the IMPOSTER.

Soooo, talk is cheep among the “no stones” pubbies. IMHO, the real challenge to the Imposter may well come from the ranks of the RATZ.

No fooling, those boyz got stones. And they may just be getting fed up with the “ONE.”

Always remember it was the RATZ who started the KKK, it was the RATZ who stood in the doorways of schools and polling places, it was the RATZ who sicced their dogs on the blacks, it was the RATZ who did Jim Crow, and it was the King RATZ, LBJ who boasted that his “war on poverty” “Put those N!!!erz Ballz in our pocket for the next 150 years.”

Bottom line, RATZ have a history of dumping the black man, when the black man becomes “inconvenient.”

46
posted on 01/14/2013 4:51:19 PM PST
by ConradofMontferrat
(According to mudslimz, my handle is a HATE CRIME. And I HOPE they don't like it.)

How would a metal detector at Sandy Hook have stopped that guy, unless there were also armored doors, adequate to stop a determined assault for long enough to allow armed deterrent to arrive, that only allowed one person through at a time?

47
posted on 01/14/2013 4:52:22 PM PST
by DuncanWaring
(The Lord uses the good ones; the bad ones use the Lord.)

No. The Second Amendment does not give the People a right to armed revolt.

The Second Amendment protects the People's preexisting right to armed revolt, in the event the government should descend into tyranny... as has happened in places like Nazi Germany, China, the Soviet Union, North Korea, Cambodia, etc.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.